The justification could be that this is historical recreation. We aren't neighbors with a loud boom box and smokey bonfire in our backyard parking our busted cars all over the front lawn; we provide a true experience for the senses, a history lesson, cinders and all. The preservation of history has championed over modern gripes for regulation before.

The thing that I see as being the critical event that will determine the future will be when, and if, the US fully signs on to the UN sponsored emissions protocols, which seem designed to penalize the "developed" nations and provide a gift to all the "underdeveloped" ones. If that happens, I doubt there will be many waivers granted for anything.

Interesting to note that for a recent presidential debate event, all eight of the candidates independently flew there, each in their own private jets, there was no pooling of transportation or effort to conserve. This of course got almost no notice at all in the US media.

MX - is the United Kingdom part of this UN sponsored emissions protocol?

While their landmass is decidely less than the US, they do pack a lot of locomotives into their corner of the globe. It would be of interest to see how another nation under probable stringent regulation would act on this matter. Or is this comparison unfair?

Regarding the UK, I'll have to let one of our friends on the other side of the pond answer that one, I unfortunately don't know whether they have fully signed on or taken exceptions. Perhaps someone over there can enlighten us and predict likely long term effects.

As a proportion of total national the emmisions produced by all the steam locos in the UK is so small as to be ignored at present. However the Nimby's will no doubt cause the situation to change in the future..

Must be a lot of people driving big bad SUV's on Mars, their climate is warming just as rapidly as ours! Wonder if there are any steam locomotives operating there! See the linked article!

By the way, a newspaper article recently said a certain Hollywood actor has five airplanes including a custom Boeing 707 and is talking about building cities in outer space to escape global warming!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 720024.ece

Let's not give him any ideas about recycling his aircraft collection, including that beautiful 707 in Qantas colors. I like old airplanes as well.

Overall I agree with your point.

I'm not hugely fearful of mass banning of steam power on carbon-emissions grounds, but this is still not a trivial issue.

On the national level, our status as cultural assets will, I think, buy us a lot of latitude. I can't recall exactly how federal emissions law applies to steam locomotives, but I have the impression that it works off the age of the vehicle, so 2-8-4's and RS-1's are equally exempt. Big-scale action against carbon emissions could change this, but I'm not fearful. (I won't say anything about how reasonable I think that is. If you want to hear a diatribe on environmentalism as puritanism and carbon as original sin, I can do that, but this isn't the place.)

There is a model for beating the assertion that recreational carbon emissions are frivolous and should be disallowed. During the first fuel shortages of the 1970's, auto racers faced public outcry over the "waste" of fuel in going around in circles. NASCAR invested a lot of very quick research into the fuel-intensiveness (or what we would call today the carbon footprint) of various recreational activities. They took a total-fuel-use approach, in which participants' travel to their favorite activities was included, not just the activity itself. The most fuel-intensive leisure activity turned out to be -- horse shows. (All those giant pickups hauling Dobbin hundreds of miles.) Auto racing was at or near the bottom, due to its local nature. Below NFL football, if I recall aright. Even though "logic is your weakest argument" in political debates of this nature, this was said to have done the job.

State law is different. In response to our self-congratulatory post elsewhere involving a big smoke cloud, there is no Michigan EPA to call. There is, however, a little-known codicil to Michigan environmental law exempting coal-burning ships and locomotives from state air-pollution law (what I call the "Pere Marquette Icons Protective Act - remember what the Ludington ferry burns?). Your state law will be different, and it can change in a hurry. The Michigan law wasn't our doing, but you might look into having a similar exemption written into your state law. (As a rough guide to the cost, I estimate it costs $50,000 to buy a piece of state legislation over minimal opposition, on average and with great variation.)

Local issues will predominate. Last weekend's 1225 photo charter included a half-dozen trips in and out of town, at times the locals weren't used to. That brought us our first smoke and whistle complaints, and necessitated a bit of damage control. Good local relations are the only armor against a malcontent who makes a crusade of shutting you down.

Any idea about the positive economic impact the trip's particpants had on the Owosso economy that weekend? That info might be useful to have in SRI's bag of tricks.

The local Convention & Visitor's Bureau in RMNE's area has done studies (done with the help of interns from a local university) on the impact of our DOWTs for the last few years. The numbers got the attention of some people (elected and otherwise), who we had a bit of trouble "reaching" before.

Howard P.

Just taking a guess, and considering (a) what we paid SRI, (b) what we paid other local merchants, (c) what our participants paid in travel costs, and (d) using a standard multiplier of 7 . . .

$250,000.

Not huge, but not insignificant.

JAC

In all seriousnes, as a long-time environmentalist AND steam fan, burning soft, clear plastic bottles and styrofoam cups does release very bad chemicals (such as formaldehyde) into the air, and is not a good idea. I would also imagine that over time there would be a build-up of residue on the flues and maybe the inside of the firebox? I'm not really sure about that one.

As for the future of steam in the age of global warming and peak oil. I've read varied scenarios of what the future may hold. There is NO doubt about the effect of our impact on climate among serious, non-industry shill scientists. We also have the looming spector of reaching the end of easy oil production. Commentators in the field, such as James Howard Kunstler suggest that steam locomotives, being the ultimate flex-fuel vehicle, may have a stop-gap role to play in serious transportation for a time. Don't write him off totally. He's been banging the drums for a major investment in re-developement of our rail infrastructure for years now. He could be an important ally.

Personally, I've recently been musing the idea of an alternative energy powered "human scale" electric railway, using some combination of solar, wind, and low-head hydro generation to power really NG trollies and eletric traction motors between local communities. Sort of a revival of Maine two-footers, but eco-friendly. If you have read the peak oil literature, getting around in the mid-term future will either depend on a lot of muscle power, or getting inventive.

Wow, that's some multiplier you got there, John. I view anything over 1.5 as suspect at the local-economy level, due to speedy leakage from the porous small-town economy, and prefer to stick to 1.0 for believability unless I need a really thick layer of hogwash. But even at that rate, local officials understood that the photography charter (and the museum generally) was a significant contributor to the local economy. Between the 1225, the new bowling alley, and the re-opening of the Taco House, we're headed for the big time.

Regarding Paul's suggestion of hope of bringing back steam locomotives as a solution to a future fuel crisis, there is another practical alternative. In downtown Los Angeles there is a small fleet of switchers that run off the gas recovered from piles of decomposing garbage and poop, and they have been operating successfully (with almost no media notice at all) since they were built in the mid-1990s. They have an effective thermal efficiency around 35% rather than 7%. I would expect that in a real fuel crisis this kind of technology would be given a high priority due to its similarity to existing diesel equipment, which includes the sharing of many electrical rotating and transmission system components with diesels.